28 Weeks Later (2007) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
854 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Could have been good but ruined by some poor choices
klchu15 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A great premise and setup are ruined by some very poor choices. The makers of this movie hate the audience and their own characters. Nothing that made 28 Days Later a really good movie is in this movie.

Let's start with plot. None of the "this could happen" realism from the first movie is here. I can forgive a few plot conveniences but they just started to stack up. I'm going to list them here so SPOILER WARNING:

  • Mom is immune to Rage virus.


  • Dad is lone survivor.


  • Dad (UK civilian) gets job where his security badge gets him past the highest US military security points.


  • There are zero guards between the entrance and the quarantine area.


  • Not to be outdone, his two kids can sneak past military check points.


  • One of those kids can also escape all zombies, snipers and find his sister, all in a few minutes.


  • Dad becomes the super zombie who can take out squads of trained soldiers (trained to kill zombies, BTW) and who can evade all mass extermination attempts.


  • Super zombie Dad can also find his kids, not once, but twice.


  • Even though zombie blood if contagious, no one ever bothers to wash, or even wipe it off.


  • On the other hand, no one ever gets infected this way either.


  • After 28 days, 28 months, and another 28 days no one bothered to close the Chunnel?


Anyway, with the plot ruined, the next to go was the acting. It's a mixed bag here. Some was good but some was *really* bad. The screaming zombies acted better than some of the regulars when they were screaming.

That bring me to the deaths. You never expect many, if any, of the main characters to survive in a zombie/horror movie. You also expect those deaths to be somewhat spectacular. However, the cruel and callous manner in which some people died crossed many lines for me. If the rest of the movie were any good then perhaps these deaths would have worked. However, I don't think these deaths were given any more thought than "how can we f*ck with people the most?" The "night scope" death was also poorly directed. It's bad enough to kill off a likable character, but to do it poorly? You fail.

That brings us to the gore. If you want gore then you're in luck. This is probably the best part of the movie, but that's not saying much. Some of it is over the top, and some of it even funny (in a black humor way), but some of it was just cheap. The quick editing and fast panning shots seemed to be hiding flaws rather than being a creative choice.

Finally, the "ending." Once again, if the film makers had shown any sort of deep understanding of the movie then I might overlook this lack of a real ending. As it stands I can only assume that the writers just got tired and said "let's end it here." There was no message or anything deep unless you consider futility to be deep. The ending was just a cheesy, seen-it-before cliché.

To conclude: skip it. 3/10
70 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
zombie mombie
onepotato223 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Well, here we are again. The zombies are back after being quelled. It would have been terrific is the writers devised a clever way to revive the extinguished plague. Instead the absurd plot posits that two bratty idiot kids bring about the 2nd zombie outbreak; that their half-zombie mom is the vessel; and that their dad (her husband) who happens to be the guy running the safe zone is the first full-on zombie, with an alpha security clearance. It's nice that they could keep the entire plot in the family. It's like Dickens' lost zombie novel where everyone (again...) turns out to be related.

Rarely has the solution to a zombie invasion been this simple; target and kill this whole stupid family in the first few minutes of the movie; the stupid kids, the stupid father, even loving mom. That should do it. God how I came to hate this family. At one point the boy brat asks, "Do you think Mom is alive?" when he might better ask "Do you think our genetically-inherited stupidity caused all of this?"

Why have the people in zombie movies never heard of zombies? Why don't characters who freak out when a person appears and disappears over an edit, have the knowledge I do from ghost movies? Why do characters spend half a horror movie not acknowledging what they've seen? Why does the world of knowledge acquired from film not exist for characters in films? This idea would save audiences a lot of annoyance and crap movies.

I guess it's only fair that it doesn't start well because it also has no ending. It's nice to see London go up in flames though.
54 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is a dreadful film, and the reasons why are...
capcanuk14 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
28 Weeks Later has to be the most disappointing sequel I've ever seen. This review will contain spoilers, however, it's nothing that the filmmakers themselves haven't spoiled to start with. Let's start with the most fundamental element of film-making: camera work. 28 Weeks Later is one of those pretentious films with the epileptic, hand-held camera that seems so popular with filmmakers who have nothing to actually say or show in their films. There are precious few scenes where the camera isn't both hand-held and in constant frenetic motion. It brings nothing to the film, creates no tension, and brings nothing new to the art of film-making. There are lengthy scenes that compound the camera work problem by also being filmed in simulated night vision. For those of you with a propensity to headaches or vision problems, this alone makes 28 Weeks Later a film to avoid.

On to the story. This is, sadly, one of those films where stupid people do stupid things as the only means the filmmakers could think of to advance a pointless story. **spoilers start** These two kids have just arrived in the "secure zone" and yet are able to sneak out, past heavily armed guards, pas various security measures, and run off into an area they have been repeatedly told is not safe. Armed guards surround the city. Soldiers are everywhere. Everyone has a machine-gun, a pistol, night vision goggles… and yet, the discovery of an infected person, brought into the "secure zone", and absolutely NO precautions are taken? There are no extra guards; there are no extra security measures. To make matters even more "logical", it seems that all the soldiers in the area where this infected person is being kept are all either idiots, unarmed, or conscientious objectors. There is not one useful weapon to be found when it would be most useful. A soldier with a helicopter wants to rescue his buddy, yet the only thing he can think to do is have them crawl throughout the city to a distant spot to pick them up? Are there absolutely NO areas closer? This is just a completely useless gimmick to have the heroes of the story trek across town. I could go on listing plot holes large enough to float the entire U.K through, but I trust my warning will be enough to ward off those who are on the fence about seeing this film or not. Somehow, the kids' father has survived all the way through these events, despite all logic. Like the lone zombie in Day of the Dead who has learned to use a gun and appears to have regained some of his sentience, here we have an infected who defies all logic, including the internal logic of 28 Days Later, to follow his children and pop up at convenient moments for cheap scares and bad melodramatic moments. The filmmakers have created situations that defy logic and normalcy to advance a completely pointless story. Characters perform actions that defy logic. Events happen that defy logic. There is blood everywhere, yet no one seems worried about infection. And I can assure you, if blood is what you feel like seeing, this movie's carnage is on the heavy side. I'm not squeamish, and I actually enjoy a good gory film every once in a while. The problem with 28 Weeks Later is not the gore. It's the pointlessness of it all.

I've seen some really bad films in my day. I've actually enjoyed some of those bad films. The problem with 28 Weeks Later is that it WANTS to be a great film. It WANTS to be a big budget gore-fest. With completely unsympathetic characters, it fails to create any bond with the audience. Even if the epileptic camera work gave us an instant of respite to actually relate to those characters. We are kept at a distance by terrible plot devices, terrible character development, and completely silly events.
600 out of 925 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I can't be scared because I can't get past how preposterous it was.
rowman222217 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I really enjoyed the first film. The characters were real, they made understandable decisions in stressful situations. It was a fresh take on a very cliché genera; zombie films.

The second film, unfortunately, has none of that. Unrealistic characters making the same irrational, unintelligent choices that people in terrible slasher films make. Maybe taken on its own it would not have been that bad, but it has a much stronger film to live up to so it amplifies all of the weaknesses.

I am sorry if I am giving some things away so stop reading now if you have not seen the film and want to "try" and be surprised. I say try because there was nothing, absolutely nothing, unpredictable about this film.

The thing I found most absurd was that after only four months of failing to find an infected person, they already want to try to repopulate the island. Preposterous!!!! The greatest plague in the history of world and they are going back all cavalier? No. It would take years, maybe even decades before any re-population attempt would be made, and even then it would be a military only operation composed of troops and scientists. There would have to be global wide panels of experts and diplomats involved as the entire world would stand to be infected if something went wrong. Anthrax can live in moist soil for years so why not the rage virus? Maybe if the title was 28 months later, or more realistic, 28 years later.

And then again, who would want to come back? There would have to be fantastic incentives to get people to move back. Such as no taxes for life, free property, hereditary titles, etc. But the filmmakers make no effort to explain why the people who moved back were motivated to do so.

Then there is Robert Carlisle's character who is ultimately the person responsible for the re-emergence of the virus. He accomplished this because he has a magnetic pass key that gives him unfettered access to the entire complex, even top secret areas. He walks into a quarantine room of an individual, who turns out to be his wife, that is a carrier of the rage virus but is asymptomatic. He supposedly is some sort of civilian contractor or maintenance worker in the facility, but that wouldn't give him unrestricted access, he isn't even military. Come on!!! Then when the virus finally breaks back out (Too far into the movie to allow for much action in a 90 minute flick) the emergency protocols are so amateurish to be laughable. It is obvious right away that they have never given any or the re-patriots emergency drills because as they are being shuffled into quarantine chambers, they are all confused as to what is happening. You have to go through emergency drills your first day on a cruise ship and they are telling us that after repopulating Brittan after the most deadly plague of mankind, they are not even going to do some drills???? So when this inevitably fails (the zombies break into the quarantine zones, of course) in the ensuing panic, the soldiers cannot tell who is infected and who isn't. After not too much time, the general gives the order to shoot everyone just to be sure. Again, I was sitting in my seat fuming, all they would have had to broadcast on the PA was "Put up your right hand if you are not infected." Presumably zombies don't follow directions. But no, the soldiers start shooting everyone. I wonder if a Nuremburg defense would work in this instance? And of all the other soldiers shooting civilians, only one has moral qualms. Pathetic.

From here, the movie devolves into the typical horror film. The surviving characters of the initial carnage band together and are slowly picked off by circumstance and the results of terrible decision making (Should I go into the Tube where it is dark and has no lights, or should I stay above ground where I can see where I am going?) Oh, and while in the tube, they navigate with a lone night vision scope on an assault rifle that the character doesn't point at the way ahead, but instead at the surviving characters heads, did she forget that the scope is attached to a gun? Who points a gun at peoples heads they are not intending to shoot. BTW this is the same character who earlier in the film corrected the word usage of a person and then made the same mistake herself. (What kind of writer didn't pick that up???) Oh, and Robert Carlisle just happens to appear in nearly every scene even though he is only supposed to be a zombie. It got really irritating to keep seeing him pop up all the time. Was someone directing his location????? Again, no explanation of why this particular zombie was so adept at finding the few survivors.
394 out of 567 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
misses Robert Carlyle in the second half
SnoopyStyle13 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
It's 28 weeks after the release of the virus and about 6 months after the first movie. The US Army is occupying London after the zombies have all supposedly died of starvation. Don (Robert Carlyle) narrowly escaped the zombies by abandoning his wife Alice (Catherine McCormack) and others. Doyle (Jeremy Renner) and Flynn (Harold Perrineau) are a couple of the military personnel under the command of General Stone (Idris Elba). Scarlet (Rose Byrne) is an Army doctor. Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) are Don's kids who return from Spain after missing the initial outbreak. The kids escape the zone to find their semi-zombified mother at home. She's infected but isn't turning.

The first one has a simple powerful originality. The originality could never be repeated. I do like Don's duplicity and personal demons from his escape. I wish the movie stayed with him as he struggles with his inner demons and possibly finds redemption. The bigger ideas are lost when he turns. It becomes a simple zombie action movie. I just miss Robert Carlyle as the main character in the second half. When time is invested in him being the main survivor character, the movie needs to follow his story. The action is bigger and more confused. It loses the cleanliness of the original horror. The simplicity of the original lends itself to be a great horror. There is probably a political statement being made about American occupation but it doesn't really dig that deep.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Later but still not wiser
kosmasp10 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
As far as the action/suspense goes, a 7/10 would have been more appropriately. But as far as the common sense and the plot holes are to be taken into that account/rating, than a 6/10 is still a good rating in my eyes.

Let me explain. Apart from the obvious "let's shake the camera to create some tension/horror", which made me more often nauseous than really scared, quite frankly, the real let downs in this movie are the plot holes and the portrayal of the military. Now I'm not a military guy myself, but to portray them in a manner, that not only makes them look stupid -> SPOILERS: they let the kids get out of the military zone just like that ... oh and how convenient, that they find them exactly at the time when they themselves have found their mother! Not to mention the unguarded mother back at the military zone, where anybody can walk into, to get infected! It's open (mad) house ... enough already! Seriously, this does spoiler a lot of the fun, one can have with the movie ... or could have had, in that case. As for example the introduction in the movie. The guilt ridden father is a great theme, that runs throughout the movie. And the whole beginning is shot in a really great way. But as I said, it doesn't hold up to that unfortunately.

And yes the ending is quite clear ... although still some people try to make sense of it. It doesn't matter (SPOILER again, watch out, don't read if you haven't watched the movie, I'm going to talk about the ending), how the pilot got infected or how the helicopter crashed ... it's just a scheme to set-up a possible "28 months later" (or whatever it will be called)! So Paris, here we come!
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Truly Great Horror Film
Theo Robertson12 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When I heard there was going to be a sequel to 28 DAYS LATER I slammed my cards on the table and proclaimed that this was going to be one of the biggest disasters in the history of recent cinema . Despite the flaws of 28 DL - And there was many - it was at least an attempt to make an intelligent post apocalyptic adventure in the vein of John Wyndham or John Christopher even though the end result was unsatisfactory but a sequel ! That's just a case of a film becoming a franchise isn't it ? It's made simply to make a profit for some film company and after hearing that the story revolves around those damn Americans saving limey butt once again I just knew I'd be watching OBJECTIVE BURMA crossbred with a generic zombie film . Give me some credit for putting my head on the block but I'm going to have to eat my words because I saw 28 WEEKS LATER earlier tonight and I was totally engrossed for the entire running time

It is not necessary to have seen the predecessor because the story starts with husband and wife Don and Alice cooking dinner in a barricaded house . Despite some obvious exposition this is a very well written scene because we think they're alone but then we're introduced to several other characters who have survived a hellish plague that seems to have swept across the world and it's only when a child starts banging at the door that the audience find out something else - It's day outside something we hadn't realised . What happens then caused myself and the rest of the audience to jump out of our seats and we see Don do something totally practical and unheroic but be honest what would you have done in the same situation ? And something like this adds vermislitude to a plot that may seem silly

As the story jumps forward 28 weeks later NATO has started to bring back refugees to Britain and rebuild the British state and having seen some of screenwriter's Rowan Joffe's output I was expecting some dire leftist agitprop something that appeals to me as much as pro American flag waving but no this is a plot that touches upon what is happening in Iraq where the road to hell is paved with very good intentions . Thankfully the audience aren't walloped over the head with the analogy but the more intelligent audience members will be able to notice the parallels while the horror and action fans will be very well catered for by the bloody set pieces . It should be pointed out that in atmosphere this tends to resemble James Herbert or George A Romero rather than Wyndham and Christopher but that's not a complaint

Mention should also go that this is a far better paced screenplay than Alex Garland's and has far less plot holes though there are one or two things that are totally brushed over like how on earth did Alice survive six months when Britain had turned to a murderous hell ? Oh she's a carrier of rage so maybe the infected didn't attack her because of this ? If that is the case then why does she get killed by someone she passes the infecion to ? And there's a scene towards the end in the underground which involves laughable coincidence , but there's nothing like the ridiculous lack of internal logic seen in the Boyle/Garland movie and best of all this sequel has a genuinely disturbing and pessimistic epilogue and that alone eclipses the original
63 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful rehash of the first film. Warning: Spoilers
28 Weeks Later is everything we fear about sequels, it's pretty much the same film done with a bigger budget and different actors. I hated the original since it had a decent concept but strayed off into some ludicrous tangent about bad soldiers and lost any real survivalist story or focus.

The sequel has mainland Britain (one country apparently, not 3) repopulated with an indefinite amount of civilians under the guide of the US Military (why so, is never explained). Survivalist Robert Carlyle (an underused and brilliant actor) meets his kids, creepily androgynous son and whining daughter, as they come back from mainland Europe and introduces them to the new, empty London. But, being a simple-minded movie with no other goal other than that of killing people and offering gory deaths, this stability obviously doesn't last long and soon enough the Rage virus comes back.

So, as you've probably seen a million times before, the authority are incompetent, the lesser characters are stupid and jeopardise everyone by nothing thinking clearly or using common sense and everyone we are introduced to is obviously just there to eventually be killed, unceremoniously and flippantly.

Several plot strings are set up, but all of them meet quick dead ends (pun intended) and, like before, the film just goes in a random direction with no clear objective or way out. None of the characters are likable, so why should we care about them? And the token kid is a poor actor with a very annoying boy band hairdo.

The overwhelming pessimism and apathy through-out 28 Weeks Later is so alienating and shallow. We've seen a hundred movies that make the point of cheapening human life in the past few years (especially since the start of the conflict in Iraq) that it's becoming quite distasteful. Do we really need any more of these societal commentaries in horror films? Is it relevant anymore? I don't believe it is. 28 Weeks Later just seems to be jumping on the bandwagon of opportunity regarding this and as an exploitation sequel to a puzzlingly over-praised cult hit.

The problem doesn't just lie with the non-existent plot. The film is so horribly over-cut and under-lit you cannot really make anything out. And please don't defend this claiming it to resemble the panic on screen. Films simulated (and stimulated) panic long before this kind of editing became commonplace. It also features an obnoxiously loud sound design to compensate for the fact that film just isn't visually or kinetically engaging.

I wasn't impressed and I was so wishing for this film to be something special. It's boring, forgetful and has nothing new to say despite how loudly it tries to scream. Save your cash and time for something else.

And they're NOT zombies.
40 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well-done: Gripping and scary
Andy444419 May 2007
Having seen 28 Days Later I thought I was prepared for this, but I was not. Somewhere near the beginning of the film is a scene that goes from zero to psycho in about 2 seconds flat. The beginning of 2004's Dawn of the Dead also had a wildly chaotic kick-off scene, but unlike that film, which was a great film to laugh through while chomping your popcorn, this film is no laughing matter.

When there's no violence, there's fear and tension.

When there is on-screen violence, there is absolute shock and horror. Scene after scene shows ordinary people placed in impossible situations from which they cannot escape. This time, of course, there now two implacable predators out there hunting them down: the rage virus from the first film, and the military which is attempting to maintain control of any outbreak, but is willing to visit unspeakable horrors upon innocent people if they cannot keep that control. The horror and scale of the virus is so severe, that the plans the military implements are completely plausible.

The actions scenes are masterfully done, effectively placing the viewer in the points of view of both the victims and the crazed, but still scarily human, zombies. The portrayal of the violence pulls no punches; people of all age groups and walks of life are destroyed without remorse. No attempt is made to soft-pedal it. The fragility of human life on Earth and its vulnerability to just the right nasty virus are thoughts that stay with you after you've left the theater, and add a nice "after taste" of fear. The soundtrack, as with the first film, is amazing in conveying the tension and dread and sadness of the scenes. The story is fairly tight, as well. My only complaints might be with the acting of some of the soldiers, which just didn't feel authentic to me for some reason.

Overall I'd say this is one of the best zombie films I've ever seen, in fact, one of the most effective thrillers I've seen, as well.
389 out of 636 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Nutshell Review: 28 Weeks Later
DICK STEEL10 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Spanish director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo takes over from Englishman Danny Boyle in the followup movie to the latter's excellent 28 Days Later, and has come up with something worthy. Should a third movie be made and doesn't screw up the good work already done, it should make a pretty neat trilogy. I enjoy the legendary George A Romero's zombies in his movies, though I have to confess I prefer those in the 28-later series, as their constant running pace provides a shot of adrenaline when our helpless victims try in futile to escape, and somehow in that reckless speed, make them truly terrifying (ok, cos I can't run, and if caught in that kind of situation, I'll be dead meat).

But the movie doesn't hit the ground running. In fact, it plays like the memorable soundtrack composed by John Murphy who also did the predecessor movie, and allows for the calm to ring through, before the madness of a storm begins. The horrific opening scene would have to be one of the best in the movie, before we're fast forwarded to 28 weeks later, where Robert Carlyle's Don awaits his children Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) and Tammy (Imoen Poots, a dead ringer for Cate Blanchett!). We revisit the quiet streets of London again, like in 28 Days Later, with recognizable landmarks void of people, and the city having been ravaged, now undergoes repopulation by those who managed to leave the initial onslaught of the Rage virus.

Before you scream "Resident Evil!" because of the similarities, be rest assured that this movie beats those in the Milla Juvovich vehicle anytime. What I thought if I read too deep into it, is the showcase of the US military being yet the armed forces occupying a land that is not theirs, imposing a safe, and highly secured "green zone" for the incoming residents to reside in, while everything outside that zone is deemed the wild west, reeked with rotting bodies and the potential of a deadly virus rearing its ugly head, ready to spark a pandemic. Probably cuts a little close to the real world, but what the heck, leave those thoughts aside and enjoy the movie.

It's no surprise too that while it's nice to see a crisis plan kick in when things go awry, there are enough moments which make you think twice about collateral damage in the name of greater good, and how one thing leads to another, and finally to extermination. And self- sacrifice is often a common element in zombie movies, and I thought this was handled extremely well, especially in the Carlyle's character. It's one thing to pay lip service, and another when there's a call to action.

I've said it before, the running zombies are a sight to behold. They're stealthy and waste no time, with the tenacity of mad rabid dogs pouncing on you with their thick bloody drool. And what makes it horrific is if you were to put yourself running away from these folks, you'll wonder exactly how long you can outlast them before they finally get to you, from all directions. Making it more difficult this time round, is the escape from the weapons of mass destruction (sorry, couldn't resist that one) that the US forces unleash, and with the snazzy CG effects, these scenes become a sight to behold, without going over the top with the effects.

I like many scenes in the movie, which I will not describe lest to spoil them for you. But indeed, there is great potential towards developing a cult following. For those in need of geography lessons, yes, those are the white cliffs of Dover. If there's a gripe, it'll again be the local distributor's decision to release this movie censored for its gory scenes. I noted at least 2 jarring cuts during scenes of blood lust. But let not those minor irritations get to your enjoyment.
68 out of 129 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A movie about zombies, made for zombies
satanenterprises27 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Horror movies are about scaring people. There are basically two ways to do this physically and psychologically.

Physically is extremely easy, you just lower music, make the character look around a dark corner, through a hole, behind a door and... Bang! Out comes the antagonist. Then the antagonist can start cutting strips off the character, digesting organs and squirting bodily fluids everywhere. Sure when done well it's scary, but my little brother could do this with a big enough budget.

Now the other side of a horror is the psychological scare. This is by far more superior and much harder to do. This is when you watch a horror and get swept into the movie. You start to think things like "I would of done that", "That could actually happen" or "They don't deserve to die". The movie makes you think about the problems the people faced, you can relate to them and may even feel sorry for the clever characters who die.

This movie is a classic example of a movie that has all the first and none of the second. Gaping plot holes aside basically every character can only be described as mentally retarded (Refer to all the other 1 star reviews for evidence). I'm sick of watching stupid people being used as plot devices in horror movies, it just shows that the creators of the movie aren't very clever.

This is to horror what slapstick is to comedy. Not very intelligent, good for a few thrills that are equivalent to getting a member of my house to jump out at me a couple of times during the day. Isn't it time that horror moved on, we've been at this level for the last 30 years with far too few exceptions. If mouth breathers would stop rating these films so well with comments like "It's got some good scares" and "It's just a horror movie" then we might see some changes.

I'm not scared Juan, I'm just really bored!
94 out of 148 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
With lots of loopholes the film is utterly bad if not terrible
sauravjoshi853 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
28 Weeks Later is a post-apocalyptic science fiction horror film directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. The film stars Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau, Catherine McCormack, Imogen Poots, and Idris Elba.

Months after a deadly virus inflicted on the population of Great Britain, US army helps to secure a small area of London for the survivors but does their plan succeeded?

Very honestly I had very high expectations from this film but somehow myself was utterly disappointed, the film makes no sense whatsoever.

The plot of the film was nice and had lots of scope but the execution is foolishly done, the film is filled with loopholes which just make the film weak, for example how the kids sneaked out in such a strict protocol when entire area is tightly surveillance by cameras and snipers, the zobmie dad can swipe id cards, can save himself from bombings. There were lots of unnecessary killings and almost everyone got killed apart from the brother and sister who started this infection again.

The start of the film was decent and it was looking that the film would be a decent zombie horror film but by expectations and the film falls flat as the film progresses. Few of the scenes are too dark and the camera is too shaky to understand what is going on in the film

Acting is decent but despite having few good actors none of them did a role which you'll remember post the film is finished also I am not been able to understand why Idris Elba was so underused. Climax of the film is underwhelming and annoying.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Effective horror movie with pace and gore but, surprisingly, not enough in the way of desperation and fear (SPOILERS)
bob the moo1 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not ashamed to admit that I avoided this in cinemas because I genuinely find zombie movies terrifying (and yes I appreciate that they are not zombies but infected people here), mostly due to the simple desire to kill and the way that everything we take for granted collapses in regards society, morals etc. It also doesn't help that I'm not a big gore fan either and that I had heard this film was pretty bad for that too. However, as much as it scared me I did "enjoy" 28 Days Later and did want to see this. So on a windless sunny Saturday morning I finally got round to watching it. The opening sequence is why I both love and hate this genre – it is the utter fear and relentlessness of the infected. I was gripped by the simplicity and desperation of the situation and it very much reminded me of the first half of the original film not only in this regards but also in the way that the basic elements of society are stripped away (in this case self-preservation taking precedence over everything else).

Unfortunately, not unlike the first film, a plot is required to move forward with and when this arrives in earnest, so do the problems. The first signs are good as we find ourselves in a scenario that is well constructed around Iraq – with the "safe" zones etc. Superficially this is very clever and does allow for veiled digs at the US approach out there but wisely it doesn't force this point too much. The film somehow has to get the infection into this safe zone and as many have already said, it does it by making massive leaps of coincidence and absences of logic. The hope would be that these are overlooked because we do quickly get to the outbreak after a comparatively quiet first 40 minutes. However by keeping Don in it, the film actually continually reminds us that, even within the internal logic of the film itself, it doesn't actually make a lot of sense.

Keeping him and his family as a thread no matter what is also a problem because the unlikely action takes away from the sense of hopelessness and survival that this genre thrives on. Instead, as we are with the main two characters, I felt a bit remote from this, almost safe – not something I thought I would feel with this film. I don't want to sound too negative though because there are plenty of individual moments are aspects that are very good. Those who have seen Fresnadillo's Intacto will already be aware that while effective story-structuring is clearly not his thing, he is able to direct stylish and slick action. He does it at the start and he does it throughout the majority of the film, even if it is not as good as I would have liked. In "28 Days" we hear about an infected in a crowd and it is a chilling description. "28 Weeks" attempts to show us this but sadly fudges it even if it does try. The outbreak and the loss of control is well done because again it does have that desperate air of fear about it but after this it becomes more variable again. At times we get "narrow escape" action with "red shirts" in the group being sacrificed – again keeping the fear a little remote. However at other times we do lose main characters in gripping moments. The design of some scenes is brilliant as well – the night vision journey underground for example.

Mostly the horror comes down to being about gore more than fear and I understand why some will appreciate this. For me it just made the film feel a little bit like hard work and gore doesn't draw an emotion from me other than revulsion. You can see the increased budget here because the bloody special effects are impressive throughout. More impressively (for me) are the scenes of a deserted London – which are challenging no matter how much money you have access to. The cast are good but suffer due to the material. You can see why Carlyle was attracted; he delivers the guilt well and it is not his fault that the script keeps him around long after he should have been written out. Renner and Byrne are given more heroic characters and thus take away from this aspect but do manage to carry the basic narrative with solid performances. The two child actors avoid being cute and are reasonably good. I was quite surprised to find Elba and Perrineau (from HBO's The Wire and Oz respectively) involved and, although they have minor characters, they are convincing and have presence. As before, Murphy's score is appropriate and well used.

Don't get me wrong by what I am saying – this is gory and quite exciting stuff that has potential in the Iraq parallels to be pretty smart. It is a success but it is a limited one partly due to the inability of the story to overcome some devices of convenience and some downright bad ideas. However for me the thing that was hardest to get away from that the absence of fear as a consistent emotion and, as much as I enjoyed the pace and the ideas, I wanted to be more involved and less of an observer.
18 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Sequel went too unreal.
Kdosda_Hegen14 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I'm pretty sure the security would have been much better in that base. Also how does an eye colour can be a factor for cure from zombie virus.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Nothing (read NOTHING) is held back...
zor_prime11 May 2007
...Not this time.

I believe 28 Weeks Later did appreciate as a sequel (with only a couple very minor depreciative concepts), and that was a surprise.

I'm admittedly a zombie film fan (especially the serious, non A-Team variety). And although the Rage virus in these two films does not produce an 'undead' zombie, the 'infected' nevertheless present a similarly formidable and threatening antagonist. If you haven't seen either film, Boyle's 'infected' are far less like the traditional lumbering Romero zombies, and closer to the Zack Snyder zombies of 2004's Dawn of the Dead. Note that if you were able to get away with seeing 28 Days Later as a date movie, you may not pull it off with 28 Weeks. There is very little breathing room, and some of it is more disturbing and far less bridled than you might be expecting, especially if you are used to the character-based 'safety' of most films.

Unlike 28 Days, a flashpan start to 28 Weeks Later sets the tone for the entire film... Which although short in running time (at just over 1:30) with quite a fast pace, still seemed very much long enough to be perfectly enjoyable, especially for any fan of the genre. Other than a brief, but informative back-story conversation near the beginning, there is almost no down time spent (wasted?) on emerging relationships or overly granular side-stories. Overall the most powerful element of the film isn't really character based, but rather the theme of a terrible pandemic that, besides a small twist, isn't much changed from the first movie.

There is one facet of the film that I did not really appreciate, but can't really detail without a spoiler warning. Let's just say that London is a fairly large playground for certain (coincidental?) events to happen (and not just once). However, there's a possibility I may be missing some concept that made these events intentional--I hope it's some twist of the virus and isn't just star power.

I'll be purchasing the DVD, but probably won't offer to watch it with any of my family and couldn't recommend it as a party movie :)

Post Script: If you had ever wondered why the rest of the world was not affected by this virus, consider the geographically isolating nature of the British Isles and the extremely short incubation period of this virus. A truly viable pandemic must have a longer incubation period and optimally be airborne or at least infect multiple disparate species. So the Rage virus, while perfectly suited in close quarters would likely not travel much farther than a pair of human legs could travel.
203 out of 351 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Seriously, the best horror movie this year!
Smells_Like_Cheese17 May 2007
So far, it seemed like we didn't have many promising candidates for a great horror movie, despite the fact that I did enjoy 28 Days Later, it was very brilliant, it still wasn't exactly on my top favs of the horror genre. But 28 Weeks Later looked interesting, I was curious how they could do a sequel when it seemed to be a promising ending to the first, but the story here really worked! It was so disturbing and had a frightening apocalypse feeling that sent chills down my spin. The movie starts strong and ends strong and doesn't let you get a breath of fresh air.

It starts off where in England there is a group of people who are all survivors from the Rage Virus, but they are attacked, including a married couple, it looks like all hope is lost for the wife, but the husband makes a clear escape. 28 weeks later, the US troops are sent to Britain to help destroy the virus and restore the country back. They gather all the survivors that are clean and have put them in a small part of England that is clear of the virus, but still there is so much to be done since a huge part of the country still has corpses and possible killers with the virus. The husband is reunited with his children and tells them that their mother is dead, but they want their old stuff from their old house in the unclean part of England, but they go and end up finding their surviving mom, but it seems like she may have the virus and ends up spreading it, causing total chaos!

This movie does not stop with the horror and never lets go, this wasn't even a matter of the jump scares in my case, I think what was so scary was the fact that this movie captured human emotions so well. What people act like in chaos, wither it's bad or good, pulling one to safety, pushing one in the way of danger to save themselves, or the simple love a family and the ultimate feeling of betrayal, fear, and helplessness. 28 Weeks Later is a terrific movie that I highly recommend, it's scary as heck and will keep you thinking for days.

9/10
53 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The end is once again extremely ****ing nigh
arthurmauk27 August 2007
I've never been a huge fan of the zombie horror genre, but I was very impressed by Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later… Somehow it managed to create characters worth caring about as well as throwing mindless zombies at them. So when I heard that a sequel was in the making, I was excited but understandably cautious since the Disappointing Sequel Syndrome is all too common nowadays. I also disapproved of the director switch, fearing that yet another low-budget gem will be Americanised by Hollywood, made far too slick for its own good.

So to say 28 Weeks Later was a pleasant surprise would be an understatement. Fresnadillo managed to maintain everything that was good in the original and add his own flair. The rage virus, the zombies and the gore are all still here. But most importantly, what keeps the series shockingly vivid is the willingness to flaunt the naked truth: we humans are the real monsters. Under such extreme circumstances, mankind's self-preservation instincts kicks in and it is an ugly sight to see. It might be the necessary thing to do, but that still doesn't make it feel right.

The film starts off at an odd pace but soon settles into a familiar terror-stricken rush. The cast was well selected, nothing out of the ordinary but no obvious weak links either. The Americanisation was not as severe as I had previously dreaded, and I actually quite welcomed Rose Byrne and Jeremy Renner leading the plot. The shots of post-apocalyptic London may have been done already but they're still as effective as ever, and John Murphy's score is brilliant as always.

All in all, a worthy sequel to Days and very few fans will be disappointed, I hope.
121 out of 207 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good Sequel
claudio_carvalho23 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
In the country nearby London, Don (Robert Carlyle), his wife Alice (Catherine McCormack) and a few survivors live hidden in a farmhouse. When infected people break in the house, Dan panics and does not help his wife to escape, running away and leaving Alice trapped inside the room. Twenty eight weeks after the outbreak that annihilated the population of Great Britain, London is considered safe and the British survivors return under the coordination of the American Army, that keeps the city under permanent surveillance. The teenager Tammy (Imogen Poots) and her young son Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton) travel back from Spain to live with their father Don in London. They miss their mother and decide to escape to their old house to retrieve pictures and some other personal belongings. However, they find Alice surprisingly alive and the Army brings her to the base. After some blood test, the biologist Scarlet (Rose Byrne) discovers that Alice is a carrier of the lethal virus and somehow has immunity to it. Meanwhile, Don sneaks through the facility to say how sorry he is to Alice, who forgives him. When he kisses her, he is immediately contaminated, spreading a new epidemic.

I usually do not like sequels, but "28 Weeks Later" is a good complement of "28 Days Later". The story follows the tragic epidemic in Great Britain basically from where the original movie ended, and in spite of having some flaws, it works. The frantic edition of the action scenes is confused, too close, with many cuts, in a pace of video-clip and does not offer the necessary continuity of the action to give the big picture of what is happening; actually it is terrible. The story is predictable, but entertains. The conclusion indicates the possibility of another sequel in Paris, which I hope does not come true. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Extermínio 2" ("Extermination 2")
26 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I was in a rage...
scottallendavis20 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
...after spending $8 to view this senseless mess of a movie. Perhaps the virus mutated to the writers, directors and actors, explaining the plot holes, sophomoric dialogue and clichéd and completely unoriginal camera work.

I don't mind the occasional plot hole in a horror movie. It's expected. What I do mind is a plot so nonsensical, so absurd, so implausible and so full of holes that I feel the film makers are purposefully insulting me.

Lucky for me I'm not all that intelligent, or the insult could have been terminal.

Read the other one star reviews of this movie for a comprehensive list of the many, many stupid reactions and decisions the characters make in this film. If I can save just one person the price of admission to this movie, then my job is done.
61 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why did people think this was good? Here's why it sucked.
mbg14730 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
My biggest problem with this movie is the total lapse of logic. Here's a list of the things I thought were absolutely stupid about this movie.

1. In the rare event of a new case of the disease, why would the military's containment plan be to round up all of the citizens and lock them in a parking garage? What sense does it make to stick hundreds of people packed in tight quarters when you're dealing with an infectious virus? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them all stay in their homes. Everyone lived in high rise apartment buildings. The buildings themselves could have been put on lock down, and everyone locked in their apartment. That way if someone gets infected, it is limited to their room, or possibly just that floor. Instead one person gets bitten in the parking garage and suddenly hundreds of people are infected in a matter or seconds.

2. How come they lock all these citizens in the parking garage, the panicked citizens can't get out, but oh wait, there's a completely unguarded fire exit near the back of garage that the military completely overlooked when coming up with this lame plan

3. Why did they kill the power to the entire city as part of the containment plan? Hey zombies are on the loose! How bout we . . . .kill the lights and make it harder for us to see them?

4. Why was the dad such a smart zombie? Aren't all the zombies just raging lunatics running around growling looking for people to eat? When the dad first gets infected he just starts raging out and can get out of the glass room he's locked himself in. But all the sudden once he's full out zombie. . .he suddenly gains the ability to use his key card to swipe himself in and out of the various restricted areas of the facility. If super smart zombie dad can do things like use his key card, why don't the zombies learn how to use guns, and open doors instead of smashing through them. . .its just stupid. All the other zombies just like grab, spray, and bite their victims, pretty straightforward stuff. But zombie dad for some reason does the eye gouge move to mom . . .and other times in the movie tackles victims and then like ponders for a moment what to do before proceeding with the killing. Another example of zombie dad not following the pattern of other zombies. He also sees the son in one scene, but rather than run straight at him and attack like all zombies do when they see a human, zombie dad decides to hide and reveal himself at a more appropriate moment. Lame!

5. The whole mom being a carrier of the disease but not turning into a zombie was stupid as well. When the zombies bust in and attack her. . .the fact that she lived without a being mauled and escapes with only a single bite mark means one thing. . .that once the zombies bit her and she contracted the disease, that they then stopped attacking her because she was one of them. So by that logic, the zombies don't attack and kill each other. But then when the dad turns into a zombie the first thing he does is kill the mom. So how the hell did that fit in? This made me question the entire zombies existence in the first place. They eat humans. . .but as soon as you're bitten you turn into a zombie within seconds, and then what they stop eating you? so ill reference the point where the two zombies somehow find their way onto the roof (entirely too quickly and easily I might add) and start attacking the sniper, so the other sniper shoots his friend to spare him the misery of being attacked by zombies. And if I remember correct the zombies just run away from his dead body. Aren't they hungry? Why wouldn't they eat his body

6. The military is just made to look so stupid in this film. Their plans are retarded and ill advised. The infection should have never gotten so out of hand as it did. They definitely had the fire power to kill everyone in the city. The place is crawling with armed soldiers. . .the dad should have been able to maybe bite a person or two before someone saw him and shot him. Also as soon as they realized the children might have a vaccine in their blood or something, they would have broadcast that info all over the radio and, not just ignored the fact and easily lose track of them. They show you an Apache helicopter they use to chase humans in the movie, but they never brought this Apache out when they actually needed to suppress the zombies. Instead the main characters get helped by some chopper pilot flying some weak, unarmed helicopter.

7. Considering how horrible the disease is, and how easily it is contracted through blood and fluids, nobody in the movie seems to care about cleanliness. If I had blood splattered on my face after shooting up zombies I would definitely wipe it off my face in case it got in my eyes or mouth. But nope, even the chief medical officer isn't worried about the highly infectious fluids on everyone.

8. Then they don't even really explain the end. What was with the scene of the inside of the helicopter at the end? And Paris are you serious. . .how the **** are they going to explain how it got off the island?

If 28 days later hadn't been so good I wouldn't have expected more than this lame effort for the sequel. It's like 3rd graders wrote the script or something.
106 out of 166 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
28 flunks later
feastorafamine4 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Does anyone remember the old TV series "Threes Company" with John Ritter? Each episode was essentially built upon a series of misunderstandings that were eventually resolved in thirty minutes. This film has a similar structure, except we are watching the containment of a lethal virus which threatens all of mankind. In one sequence after another the actions of the actors is unbelievably foolish. First the viewer is supposed to believe that anyone would want to return to London after such horrendous events occurred. Then, how may I ask, do two children sneak out of the safe "green zone" they are protected in, and travel miles out into the forbidden and potentially infected zone? This isn't equal to sneaking in or out of the theater you visited to see this film, it's on par with sneaking out of Gitmo (or at least it should be). OK so fine, the viewer might let this slide even though the whole time they watch this portion of the film you are filled with disgust because of the stupidity of the characters actions, as well as the improbability that such an escape could occur. Moving on to only minutes later in the film, the two children discover there mother, whom they assumed was dead, looking very infected in their former home. She is brought back to the quarantined medical facility along with the children and tests positive for the virus. Now the next frustrating and improbable leap. The children's father "visits" the restrained mother inside the "secure" medical facility, swiping a security card through door after door until he is able to speak with her, without anyone in the facility knowing or being alerted to his presence. We are asked to believe that the same card he used to get in and out of his living quarters can somehow grant him access to the most sensitive areas of the medical facility. Also we are expected to believe that there is NO security guarding this woman even though she has been confirmed to carry the virus. We all know what happens next as the father becomes infected and the new outbreak spreads. Onto the next unthinkable wrinkle in the plot. As the infected and uninfected alike run screaming from the facility out into the street the armed forces are asked to target and shoot ONLY the infected. The snipers are supposed to make instantaneous distinctions between those who are healthy and those infected in a fraction of a second? The truth is that everyone running from that facility would be cut down like weeds to prevent ANYONE from leaving the building (which the higher command eventually decides to do much later than was reasonable to do so) It is only through blindly accepting the stupidity of the characters as well as the utter improbability that these characters can go and do as they please, to places they are not supposed to be, that any enjoyment can be achieved. Let's face it, the film may enjoyable on some level, for various reasons, but if you have a hard time with these obvious stretches of reality it becomes difficult to fully enjoy the rest of the film. I enjoyed the first film immensely, and I am well aware that stretches of reality are not uncommon in the horror genre, but this movie just goes too far. I have omitted a continual string of ridiculous plot turns and unthinkable character behavior that follows the breach of the virus because I feel it compassionate to do so. Those who give this film high marks in my opinion are purely giving credit for the minimum. Of course Horror films are not always judged the same as their dramatic counterparts, but viewers have developed a more sophisticated and discerning view of horror films. 28 Days later is responsible for helping lift the expectations of horror fans, this film lowers the bar. I am now going to wander off by myself in the dark, towards the summer camp lake, knowing there is a madman on the loose killing my friends in an attempt to forget this sad sequel. Wish me luck. It might take me 28 months and dismemberment to do so.
67 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
a fairly solid sequel
movieman_kev16 November 2007
28 weeks after the original outbreak of the Rage virus the military is still busy cleaning up and providing 'safe zones' for the survivors of the post-apocalyptic London. However two kids who want to see their old house could just be everyone's undoing in this sequel to the film "28 Days Later" Director Juan Fresnadilo might not be quite up at the level as Danny Boyle, but he still does an admirable job in his own right and the film crawls with tension (espiecally the opening sequence which is superb). It's also well-acted apart from a few bit parts. But make no bones about it, it's the great Robert Carlyle (Full Monty) who steals the show as the children's' dad who makes some extremely tough choices, he really sinks his teeth into the role and the film is all the more better for it.

If the franchise can keep up the same breakneck pace, tension, and scares as the first two films have then i'd have no qualms about seeing a "28 Months Later" or even a "28 Years Later"

My Grade: B+

Eye Candy: Catherine McCormack shows T&A (but due to the scenario it isn't arousing)
15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Exciting and apocalyptic follow-up with noisy action, and spectacular images
ma-cortes25 December 2008
The deadly virus has decimated the city of London, exception a little zone where live people no-infected. The US army controls the city and is repopulating with good people. A family formed by a father named Don(Robert Carlyle) and sons, Tammy(Imagen Poots)and Andy(Mckintosh)are reunited .But one of them spreads the epidemic, the rage virus outbreaks and re-ignites the infection infiltrating in the secured zone , causing wreak havoc and death .Those exposed cruel biting suffer a complete transformation turning into meat-eating sickos. The sons escape and are helped by a soldier(Jeremy Renner) and a military doctor(Rose Byrne).The military take on zombies and the survivors are surrounded , facing the world destruction by deadly epidemic.

This moving film contains chills, thrills, horror and lots of blood and gore.The flesh-eating mutants appearance deliver the goods plenty of screams, shocks and tension.The horror moments are compactly made and fast moving .The make-up assistant create a truly frightening zombie cannibals. Terrifying and astonishing frames about apocalyptic events with deserted streets, and creepy mood at London without people totally uninhabited , similarly to classics movies, such as ¨Quatermas and pit, Omega man and Lifeforce¨. I think this movie is better than previous original, because packs more action and more breathtaking images. Casting is frankly well, along with distinguished players, Robert Carlyle, Catherine McCormack, Rose Byrne, Harold Perrineau, appear young promises,as Imagen Poots and Mckintosh.Nice cinematography , using steadycam and photographed in videotape by Enrique Chediak. Atmospheric and haunting musical score by John Murphy ,composed in the same style from '28 days later'by Danny Boyle(also producer along with Alex Garland) . The flick is surprisingly realized with startling visual style by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo(Intacto). Rating : Better than average, this horror story will leave you stunned.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Very Poor
dantemple-112 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER _ _SPOILER _ _ SPOILER I am surprised to see so many positive reviews for 28 weeks later, as in my opinion it bares little comparison to its excellent predecessor.

It is not completely without merit, the film does succeed is in recreating the style and feel of the first film. The best elements of the cinematography, camera work and score from 28 Days are again present here.

Unfortunately what are lacking are a cohesive plot, plausible characterisation and quality acting.

Most annoying of all is Robert Carlisle's zombie, he really should have had the words 'plot device' tattooed on his forehead.

Until half way through the second film we had been led to believe that all those infected with the virus become mindless psychos only intent on murdering the nearest person to them.

However luckily for us and the film, Carlisle's zombie has the dubious ability to teleport himself directly into the any scene as and where the plot dictates. This is the kind of focus group thinking that ruins the majority of US made films and I am disappointed to see this here.

Bringing me on to the acting. Imogen Poots as Tammy was particularly weak. Luckily her character manages to maintain an indestructible layer of eye liner during the film, thank god, I really wouldn't have been able to believe her performance otherwise.

I imagine this film will be well received in the US as its contrived plot and tenuous happenstance will be forgiven in the face of its increased action and gore.

Overall it's a very poor effort.
166 out of 273 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No,
robertconnor1 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Set during and after the horrific events of its predecessor '28 Days Later', this follow-on film finds another group of survivors besieged and overcome by the infected, with only one man (Carlyle) managing to escape. Weeks later he is reunited with his teenage son and daughter who (fortunately) were on holiday in Spain during the initial outbreak. However, although initially assumed dead, they discover their mother also survived the attack and despite being 'infected', has no symptoms of the rage...

After the minor brilliance of 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later is utter garbage, riddled with enough plot holes to sink Cunard's entire fleet! It reminded of Alexander Finbow's awful '24 Hours In London' (2000) in its ineptitude on so many levels. Where do I begin? Given that Carlyle's character's wife had apparently returned from the dead AND the fact that he had an all areas pass, did not someone in the US military perhaps suspect he might use his pass to visit his (completely unguarded) wife?? Once the new outbreak kicks off, when a large number of civilians are placed in a secured area for their own protection, shouldn't someone within the US military have perhaps first checked that the area actually was secure i.e. that the back door was locked? Given that those infected with the rage become blood thirsty, raging zombies with not too much intelligence, how come one of the key infected characters is waiting for our teenage heroes in a pitch dark underground station on the other side of town from the initial new outbreak? Given that the corpse inside the pizza parlour is in an advanced state of decay, how come the pizza in the box on the back of the moped looks pretty fresh? And finally, how come no-one notices that 'teenage' Tammy is being played by a 27 year old woman??

A sorry post-script to Boyle and Garland's first film, and despite the door being left open for a third film, let's hope it never gets made.
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed